# Elsa Critical Constitution Review

> Critically review Elsa or framework constitution sections for enforceable gates, ambiguity, contradictions, missing exceptions, ratification readiness, and source-of-truth drift. Use when a user asks to question, revise, finalize, ratify, or challenge constitution/architecture rules.

- Skill: `elsa-workflows/elsa-critical-constitution-review` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add elsa-workflows/elsa-critical-constitution-review`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/elsa-workflows/elsa-critical-constitution-review/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: elsa-workflows (https://skillmd.com/u/elsa-workflows)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/elsa-workflows/elsa-critical-constitution-review

---


## User Input

```text
$ARGUMENTS
```

## Outline

1. Read `docs/skills/catalog.md#critical-constitution-review`.
2. Read the target constitution section in `.specify/memory/constitution-framework.md` or `.specify/memory/constitution.md`.
3. Read linked glossary/reference/report material only when needed to separate gate meaning from rationale/history.
4. Compare the target rule against current code reality and maps when the review asks whether it is enforceable.
5. Present findings first: ambiguity, contradiction, missing exception, non-gate material, stale draft history, or ratification blocker.
6. Propose a revision path or work unit. Do not silently rewrite constitutional meaning.

If the review produces deferred findings, update or propose an update to `docs/reports/unfinished-work.md`. If a finding becomes planned durable work, add or move it to the relevant program-goal bucket before implementation, or explicitly keep it `none/free-flow`.